Member Info for Wellington99

@KickThePuss In rude health as they say.
I have no insight into the court case timescale, but I would guess that, as it would be case law and thus precedent for other actions, it will be later rather than sooner, alas.

@KickThePuss Yup, it was the real deal.
There are occasionally useful or sensible posts on here that provide insight or new information, but the signal is often drowned out by the noise of morons who don't understand the basics of investing or who just post utter she-ite about the share price going to the moon or vice versa.
Judging by the number of Green Boxes on this post I guess that there are quite a few windows that have gone unlicked today.

Just checked on AJ Bell's website and they don't lend shares:
"All investment holdings are recorded in our systems and are regularly reconciled and subject to robust procedures and controls. We never lend your investments to other parties and we will only carry out transactions when we have a validated instruction from you or in circumstances laid out in our terms and conditions"

Pfizer pill signalling the end of all this Covid B0ll0cks

Quarterly results are mainly a US thing - Cineworld currently is only listed in the UK and thus only reports on a six monthly basis so you'll have to wait until March 2022.

@latpulldown I wasn't so impressed with Mr Kane, although that is caveated with the fact I didn't see the whole of his testimony. That's mainly because I think that the judge had worked out that the vast majority of Cineplex's claim for damages were bogus, and hearing two hours (or whatever he was constrained to to let Mr Mark has his 90 minutes) of him bang on might have actually done more harm than good.
It's a spin on never argue with fools or drunks. I.e. don't accept the premise of the question; don't accept that Cineplex's claims have any substance *IF* the judge already knows that.
I grant you that it was belt and braces to refute the claims, but I think that by doing so it gave them more credence than what they were worth.

I'm pretty confident that we are talking about buttons rather than real money.
The judge was underwhelming in terms of being in command of her brief, so that's a risk.
But what was clear is that on the evidence of damages, she was disinterested as several higher courts had opined on this matter and not sided with Cineplex's view of the world.
Babs ain't someone who wishes to change settled law (as considered and laid down by the UK Supreme Court - yes idiots, it does matter), as I suspect that if she did it would be elevated to the Court of Appeal and then Canada's Supreme Court and she would look silly.
We *know* that she will follow precedent on this matter and dismiss the fancilful damages claims.
For me, the spectre of $2billion plus has been relegated to sub $10m.
That should be a fillip to the share price, but I doubt it.

@FI Yup we are Crabworld for the time being - only ever moving sideways.
I'm pretty comfortable, having watched the final session of the trial, that win/ lose/ draw is up for grabs, but that we are only talking about c$5m being at stake.

BTW Mr Marks arguments on the ordinary course covenant are very persuasive but they fail to take account that Cineplex could and should have asked for Cineworlds consent. Wasting quite a lot of his remaining time but he did land a killer blow at the beginning!

@thecouchman I think that that was what the judge was angling for but now it looks like she will have to find in cineplex's favour but will probably rebalance the scales by awarding derisory damages of £5.5m

Hi Mountainous - I agree on damages, they are clearly nothing like what is claimed. It seems that the judge was coming round to the conclusion that both parties breached and so Cineworld could terminate. Now it looks like if she has decided that then Cineplex gets a free pass under the terms of the contract.
She said that this is a mjor deal for her and so we need to hear what Cineworlds lawyers say.
Riveting stuff.

It just went wrong.
The contract appears to say that Cineworld cannot terminate the agreement if it was in breach of covenant itself i.e. D'Souza got it backwards
Judge very unhappy

The judge is saying "OK, so what if I find that Cineplex breached its covenants under ordinary course and Cineworld breached its honest performance covenant, where does that leave us?"
Mr D'Souza shows very convincingly that Cineworld is still entitled to terminate because Cineworlds breach did not cause Cineplex's breach

Mr D'Souza just gave Cineplex a headshot

Depends. It's entirely possible that we could lose due to some technicality, the key thing in that case would be the quantum of damages. I really can't see how in the absolutely worst case scenario that they would be more than $100m and in all likelihood somewhere in the region of $5m - $20m is more probable. At that point the share price would likely still recover because the threat of $2bn would have been lifted.

@latpulldown please stop talking your book on this board.
You boasted that you bought in at 672p and now you are trying to get others to be bag holders for your poor decision making.
This is a Cine board.
If you idiotically bought a falling knife, please don't try and get other members to bail you out of your stupid decision.
Or am I "talking with forky tongue"?

Heretic!

"And that's NumberWang!"

If you are old enough you will remember the 3-2-1 Gameshow with Ted Rogers and Dusty Bin.
Contestants would come on with a prop clue and try and unravel the riddle to win a holiday or car and not want to win the booby prize of Dusty Bin.
Here's an example from Wikipedia:
"For example, a wishbone brought on by Sonny Hayes came with the clue "Take one that never changes, add a pub and a precious stone, bring them all up-to-date, and now, you're on your own.", which the contestants rejected hoping it referred to Dusty Bin. Rogers' explanation of the clue was: "'Take one that never changes', well, that could be Dusty Bin which of course is where you might throw a wishbone. 'Add a pub and a precious stone', well, that doesn't point to Dusty. 'Bring them all up-to-date, and now you're on your own.'. Well, what about the wishbone? Sonny said 'a large wishbone', so what might a large wishbone come from? Something larger than a chicken. Turkey, maybe? Now, 'one that never changes.' is a constant, a pub can also be an inn, there's a lot of precious stones but how many go with 'constant inn'? How about opal? Yes, Constantinople, up to date, the pride of Turkey, you've rejected a 3–2–1 holiday!".
That's where I think we are when trying to unravel this case.

BTW people have asked why both parties are pointing to US and English cases. The reason is that because they stem from the same basic legal system, similar cases are held to be persuasive but not binding. Historically, that was more comon but is unusal these days out of commercial litigation.